• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Susannah Fox

I help people navigate health and technology.

  • Home
  • Writing
    • greatest hits
    • beauty and wonder
    • demographics
    • featured commenters
    • health data
    • key people
    • peer-to-peer health care
    • positive patterns
    • public Q&A
    • trends & principles
  • Research
    • Digital Health Practices Among Teens and Young Adults: Key Findings
    • Fact sheet: teens and young adults, social media, online health resources
    • Fact sheet: differences between young women and young men in their use of social media, online health resources
    • Fact sheet: differences between LGBTQ and straight youth in their use of social media, online health resources
    • Pew Research: Americans’ Data Worries
  • About me
    • Now
    • Curriculum vitae
  • Upcoming events

Googlers vs. e-patients vs. cyberchondriacs–Susannah Fox

November 26, 2007 By Susannah Fox 8 Comments

Tara Parker-Pope’s blog, Well, sparked an outcry last week when she posted, “A Doctor’s Disdain for Medical ‘Googlers’”. Before you read her post and all the comments (275 so far), I recommend reading the actual Time column which inspired it all.

I’d love to hear what people think about the issues raised, but I also want us to notice the use of the term “googler” to describe the group we would call “e-patients” (and that Harris Interactive would call “cyberchondriacs.”) I deliberately linked to the Wikipedia definitions for each of the terms because they would not appear in any conventional dictionary and because these terms are still being defined.

My question: Do labels matter? Would the French Revolution have gone differently if the peasants had not been called “les sans-culottes“? When history judges the nativist America First Party, will they get better marks than the Know Nothing Party because they had a better name?

What does it mean that some people talk about e-patients in terms of the search engine they often choose, while others talk about them in pejorative terms (even if the slur was not intended)?

Share this:

  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: trends & principles

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Terry Graedon says

    November 26, 2007 at 2:21 pm

    It is fascinating to blame technology, or information, for people’s personality failings. There may be more self-absorbed narcissists showing up in Dr. Haig’s office these days, since our culture tends to encourage rather than dampen those tendencies in people. But someone’s decision to inform herself about her condition or her physician surely does not make her a narcissist, or a “cyberchondriac” either. The most intensive users of online health information are people with very real, very serious or chronic health conditions.

    Oddly, comments posted in response to Jon Lebkowsky’s column about e-patients on http://www.worldchanging.com(http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007597.html) also exhibit a distrust of people’s ability to exercise discrimination regarding the health information they find online. Yet patients are being urged in the Wall Street Journal (Health Journal, 11/20/2007) to use the Internet to investigate their doctors’ financial entanglements with drug and device companies. If we can’t unravel medical information, how in the world will we make sense of any financial information we find?

    This skepticism of people’s ability to use their judgment is at variance with my impression of most of the people who ask questions on our Web site, peoplespharmacy.com. By and large, these folks are careful, well-informed, and want to know the reasons and research behind our recommendations. Most are happy to partner with health care providers, so long as they can find those who are willing to be partners. Is there any research to show the relative frequency of people focusing on the weirder stuff that is available online vs locating the information that they and their health care providers can use?

    Reply
  2. Charlie Smith says

    November 26, 2007 at 2:34 pm

    Susannah,

    These terms clearly have a negative connotations, as so vividly described in Dr. Haig’s article. He obviously was turned off and was anxious to put as much distance as possible between himself and the patient.

    On the other hand, referring to patients who use the internet to get information that allows them to make better decisions about their health as “e patients” is a neutral, if not respectful, term. And, in my view, respect and encouragement is what they deserve, not this thinly veiled name calling that sounds more like a disease that the wave of health care’s future.

    Referring to an “e patient” as a “Googler” or a “Cyberchondriac” is about like calling a patient a “Crock” or a “Gomer”. Dr. Haig should really be ashamed to write this piece and, from what I can tell, has gotten a piece of many people’s minds as a result.

    Interesting, stimulating post. Thanks.

    Charlie

    Reply
  3. e-Patient Dave says

    February 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

    > Do labels matter

    Holy crap, yes! I’m just catching up on all this. I just read Dr. Haig’s original article and the follow-up bloggage and Salon article. Lots of thoughtful reaction and plenty of kneejerk crap.

    At work I’m involved a little with the marketing discipline of branding (“it is what [brands] do for people that matters … how they reflect and engage them, how they define their aspiration and enable them to do more” – Wikipedia 2/10/08). Plus, the whole discussion about memes illustrates how powerful it can be: “some ideas will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and, for better or for worse, mutate.”

    When word is spreading in a time of disruptive social change, few things could be more potent than what an idea is called when people first learn about it.

    If we get “branded” as rude idiots, with good evidence to support it, that’s a problem.

    Today on my blog I’ll urge that we actively encourage the use of the term e-patient. It’s a good eyebrow-raising term – a legitimate attention-getter – and you folks here have done a good job of establishing what it means.

    Let’s fortify and protect that “brand.” We’re not a commercial enterprise – it’s not that kind of brand – but the principles that make a great brand work (see the Wikipedia article) can help this patient-centered initiative, too.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Cyberchondria: Old Wine in New Bottles | e-Patients.net says:
    December 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    […] as well as a survey of 515 Microsoft employees. They also did a great service to those of us who have a problem with the term “cyberchondriac” since they define cyberchondria as “the unfounded […]

    Reply
  2. SusannahFox says:
    November 18, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    @VinceKuraitis Here's an old post I wrote about googlers vs. cyberchondriacs vs. e-patients http://bit.ly/4bZvMS

    Reply
  3. ePatientDave says:
    November 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    True classic post: RT @SusannahFox: @VinceKuraitis An old post I wrote abt googlers vs. cyberchondriacs vs. e-patients http://bit.ly/4bZvMS

    Reply
  4. The Pew Internet/Health FAQ | e-Patients.net says:
    December 8, 2009 at 10:21 am

    […] of how to describe people who use the internet to gather health information. For example: Googlers vs. e-patients vs. cyberchondriacs. Amy Tenderich of DiabetesMine had another good take on this topic:  “Patients” versus […]

    Reply
  5. E-patients, Cyberchondriacs, and Why We Should Stop Calling Names | e-Patients.net says:
    August 30, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    […] posts: Googlers vs. e-patients vs. cyberchondriacs and Cyberchondria: Old Wine in New […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before Footer

popular posts

  • Hack needed: Tiny pills, trembling hands
  • "A jumbo jet a day" - who said it?
  • Hypothesis generator
  • Sunflowers turn to each other for help

Recent Comments

  • Susannah Fox on Hack needed: Tiny pills, trembling hands: “Update: Peer-to-peer connections, open-source design, and new manufacturing capabilities may have yielded a solution. Here’s the story: TikTok Users Rally…” Jan 11, 06:39
  • Susannah Fox on Lessons learned about hospice care: “Erica, thank you for fighting for your grandmother and I’m sorry for your loss. So many themes and vignettes in…” Jan 4, 08:25
  • Lorraine Johnson on Lessons learned about hospice care: “Such an eye opener! What do you think you would have done in retrospect knowing what you know now? Lorraine” Jan 3, 17:42

Footer

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Topics

  • Beauty and Wonder
  • Demographics
  • Key People
  • Participatory Research
  • Peer-to-Peer Health Care
  • Positive Patterns
  • Public Q&A
  • Trends and Principles

Don't miss a post

Enter your email address and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Explore

Copyright Susannah Fox © 2021 · WordPress · Log in

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.